(Original post by bj_945)
Do you like leaving Gaddafi's forces to murder people?

The "British kids" will not be deliberately targeting one civilian.

Gaddafi's forces have already deliberately targeted thousands of civilians. That we would kill anything like that is unimaginable, and they would be mistakes made in very carefully planned, difficult operations. Meanwhile, Gaddafi's forces are shooting civilians in cold blood and you are suggesting that we sit back and watch.

are they shooting civilians or rebels, deaths are in the hundreds the country has a population like scotlands, in the congo 200,000 are dead, go help out there.

that civil war in libya was going to be over within 2 days, now it will last far far longer.

attacking libya is untenable, let them be, or do the same for other countries, including denouncing bahrain.

As you can see, the West would have profited more Oil-wise if it made an excuse to invade Algeria.

So knowing that the "We did it for the oil" is bull****, and the West has no interest to colonise Libya: Yes, I fully support this military action.

Why didn't they intervene in Rwanda, Myanmar and Zimbabwe. Why didn't we intervene when those countries were in the same position....None of those countries have anything the West desires.

Besides, they'd rather they intervened and end the conflict than let it roll into a civil war where oil from the region would be hard to access.

I'm not saying that oil is the soul reason but it plays a size-able part. If the west were really bothered about the oppression of the people in Libya why didn't we start intervening years ago, by not selling arms to Libya's government?

(Original post by NoFunnyBusiness)
Why didn't they intervene in Rwanda, Myanmar and Zimbabwe. Why didn't we intervene when those countries were in the same position....None of those countries have anything the West desires.

Besides, they'd rather they intervened and end the conflict than let it roll into a civil war where oil from the region would be hard to access.

I'm not saying that oil is the soul reason but it plays a size-able part. If the west were really bothered about the oppression of the people in Libya why didn't we start intervening years ago, by not selling arms to Libya's government?

This has already been explained a few pages back, sigh. There were UN troops in Rwanda but there was no resolution bc some member states were against it. You should also check in what countries the UN has troops at the moment is intervening, what do they desire in Timor as someone earlier said, please answer this?

It is simply not true that the UN has only intervened in countries where they could gain from. Also, the costs of the intervention will heavily outweigh any Libyan oil resources. The West would have done much easier to side with Gaddafi had they wanted oil so badly. Ugh, why do people keep asking the same things over and over again?

The arms trade is ugly but again sanctions and arm embargos also need approval. Libya got lots of arms from Russia, do you think Russia would agree to an embargo? Your mistake is to lump the UN and the West together. I advise you to check out the good things UN troops have done and are currently doing before accusing them of only intervening in countries where something is to be gained other than peace.

(Original post by NoFunnyBusiness)
Why didn't they intervene in Rwanda, Myanmar and Zimbabwe. Why didn't we intervene when those countries were in the same position....None of those countries have anything the West desires.

Besides, they'd rather they intervened and end the conflict than let it roll into a civil war where oil from the region would be hard to access.

I'm not saying that oil is the soul reason but it plays a size-able part. If the west were really bothered about the oppression of the people in Libya why didn't we start intervening years ago, by not selling arms to Libya's government?

Iran clearly has more oil, why didn't we intervene there? It would actually be ridiculously easy for the US. Simply deploy more forces in Iraq and blitz Iran from there.

I do agree though that the oil is a part of it, especially now that Gaddafi-European relations have reached a low point of no return. But not a significant part. If the oil had been the main interest of the West, they would have simply turned a blind eye on the rebels, if not supported Gaddafi.

That said, I think the main reason is political and therefore symbolic. Right at the shores of Europe, the West would look weak if they did not intervene to such a situations, especially when there was a request by the Arab League.

(Original post by Brandmon)
Iran clearly has more oil, why didn't we intervene there? It would actually be ridiculously easy for the US. Simply deploy more forces in Iraq and blitz Iran from there.

I do agree though that the oil is a part of it, especially now that Gaddafi-European relations have reached a low point of no return. But not a significant part. If the oil had been the main interest of the West, they would have simply turned a blind eye on the rebels, if not supported Gaddafi.

That said, I think the main reason is political and therefore symbolic. Right at the shores of Europe, the West would look weak if they did not intervene to such a situations, especially when there was a request by the Arab League.

Who has ever told you that an operation like that would be easy? If you're suggesting it would be 'easy to blitz Iran from there' then you're sadly mistaken. There's a reason why our troops have been in the Middle-East for nearly a decade, Tony Blair's eyes were bigger than his mouth. It would probably take the USA a good 7-8 years to 'deploy more forces in Iraq and blitz Iran'. Soldiers don't grow on trees, I do however, agree about you're views about the oil not being a 'significant part' if these operations that have been carried out in Benghazi.

(Original post by Leonie01)
This has already been explained a few pages back, sigh. There were UN troops in Rwanda but there was no resolution bc some member states were against it. You should also check in what countries the UN has troops at the moment is intervening, what do they desire in Timor as someone earlier said, please answer this?

It is simply not true that the UN has only intervened in countries where they could gain from. Also, the costs of the intervention will heavily outweigh any Libyan oil resources. The West would have done much easier to side with Gaddafi had they wanted oil so badly. Ugh, why do people keep asking the same things over and over again?

The arms trade is ugly but again sanctions and arm embargos also need approval. Libya got lots of arms from Russia, do you think Russia would agree to an embargo? Your mistake is to lump the UN and the West together. I advise you to check out the good things UN troops have done and are currently doing before accusing them of only intervening in countries where something is to be gained other than peace.

You just don't get it do you?

In your mind...

USA spends x amount on war

oil is worth y amount

x > y therefore oil was not the motive

In reality....

USA taxpayers money is spent on the war

Oil corporations then get the juicy contracts after and the weapons companies make a killing

And in case you haven't worked it out already the government are effectively controlled by these business interests.

(Original post by bj_945)
Qatar isn't the whole Arab world is it. Qatar is known for being liberal and pro-Western, for an Arab monarchy.

Part of the legitimacy for this whole affait was based in support from the Arab states. If they don't want Libyan lives to be saved, they can have their massacre. Of course plenty of them have their own protests at home.

Another war,another attempt to bring democracy.
It worked for Iraq,why not here?

Civilian causality will exist either ways... There could have been talks,negotiations than the use of force. What remains in the bold is that as long humans exist so will war.Instead this has provoked some segment of the country into the belief of the 'west' is after our resources.

Btw. who is leading this coalition ? Where are those arab nations which voted over this ?
Oppresion occurs daily,everywhere.

Palestine,Kashmir,China,Mozambiq ue,Somalia why don't we lead one for these too ?

^^
One thing is clear,value of human life is equivalent to what's returned in exchange.

EDIT:If qaddafi was really a righteous ruler he would've stepped down but I guess one reaches the point of in-denial over a prolonged time.

(Original post by lassiesuca)
The West are only intervening because they are harping on about humanitarian reasons, when the truth is that it's all to do with oil! Libya is the main oil source and with all this **** going on, Gaddafi is annoyed at the U.S, U.K etc because they're all ''conspiring'' against him, he cuts off their oil, so if the British help the rebels take Gaddafi down, they'll be in the rebels good books, when a new rebel leader comes in = more oil for the West countries.

The reason I say this is because;
- Each missile costs around $10-50 million, they've already shot 100's of them, so now we're in the big bucks, not a particularly cheap rescue mission- but;

- There are millions of starving people in Africa, with Malaria, HIV/Aids, suffering etc- and although we do give aid- we're forking out millions to bomb somewhere in Libya, instead of perhaps sending a few million to help build suitable conditions for babies and medical equipment, or fund education for young Africans.

- America believe that what is going on in Libya is morally wrong; I quote ''The government are killing their own people''. In America, they have a death sentence- okay, it is for those who do morally wrong- but to Colonel Gadaffi, what they're doing in Libya, the rebelling, is wrong to him- he's punishing them for it ( I'm not condoning it whatsoever by the way!!!), basically, the American's are huge hypocrites because they're simply contradicting themselves, because they basically kill their own people themselves. America has no welfare state; so many people live on the streets, turn to prostitution etc.

I think we have to read between the lines here, our PM can put on a big smile and the whole ''We're doing this because it is legal and morally right'' when really, they want oil.

I do hope that Gadaffi is taken down, and the rebels get the freedom that they're obviously extremely passionate about, because enough is enough. I suppose regardless of the UN's selfish decision, it is aiding the rebels, who I feel do deserve the lucky break and our army can provide them with the artillery which they are lacking.

1) Libya isn't the main source of oil. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Canada are the top 3. Libya is no. 10.
2) Yes tomahawk missiles are expensive but on the grand scheme of military hardware, it's next to nothing with a budget of $692 billion dollars.
3) It is far more difficult to prevent/stop malaria, HIV etc than it is to stop Gadaffi, not to mention malaria, HIV etc are all natural. Gadaffi bombing the **** out of his own people is not.
4) The death sentence is only in a few states and used after a fair trial etc. Do you think the anti-Gadaffi forces all go through the same justice system? Comparing mindless killing of innocents to the death penalty is absurd.

How can you say it is a selfish decision to help rebels? That makes zero sense. Plus please tell me why the UN are in Dafur, LIberia and Ivory Coast if everything has an ulterior motive...

(Original post by robin22391)
are they shooting civilians or rebels, deaths are in the hundreds the country has a population like scotlands, in the congo 200,000 are dead, go help out there.

OK, I'll call you on this one. With an international consensus, and national consensus to deploy troops if needed, what policy changes would you make on Congo, to make a better humanitarian impact?

I ask because you make out like it is mind-numbingly obvious what line should be taken in the world for better humanitarian benefit than the current action.

that civil war in libya was going to be over within 2 days, now it will last far far longer.

Deaths are in the thousands, and there is no doubt that his revenge on the Libyan people will cost thousands more lives were he successful. Let me illustrate to you what that means:

Right now it means scores of families being blown apart in their houses by military shells. It means revenge attacks where people are brought up to walls, facing Libyan soldiers, and mercilessly shot.

Gaddafi has done this in the past. He killed 1200 political prisoners in one day at Abu Selim in 1996. Thousands of Libyans will face the same fate if his forces prevail. Thousands of individuals will be slaughtered in cold blood, and any soldier who refuses to murder will be murdered in turn.

and more importantly why did the sas have explosives?

It was the SBS, and I have no idea, do you? I don't even know what kind of explosives they were, do you? But I can imagine there are perfectly normal reasons why you might be carrying explosives in an uncertain war-zone.

On the other hand, if the SBS operation was primarily military, why did they have a diplomat with them?

The point is, nobody knows the precise details of why the SBS was there, but as far as I can see the official line seems plausible, and you haven't given any alternative view at all, let alone one that was more plausible.

(Original post by ibysaiyan)
Another war,another attempt to bring democracy.
It worked for Iraq,why not here?

Civilian causality will exist either ways... There could have been talks,negotiations than the use of force. What remains in the bold is that as long humans exist so will war.Instead this has provoked some segment of the country into the belief of the 'west' is after our resources.

Btw. who is leading this coalition ? Where are those arab nations which voted over this ?
Oppresion occurs daily,everywhere.

Palestine,Kashmir,China,Mozambiq ue,Somalia why don't we lead one for these too ?

^^
One thing is clear,value of human life is equivalent to what's returned in exchange.

EDIT:If qaddafi was really a righteous ruler he would've stepped down but I guess one reaches the point of in-denial over a prolonged time.